Local Protection Enforcement in PCEP
draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-00
Network Working Group A. Stone
Internet-Draft M. Aissaoui
Updates: 5440 (if approved) Nokia
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sidor
Expires: May 20, 2021 Cisco Systems, Inc.
S. Sivabalan
Ciena Coroporation
November 16, 2020
Local Protection Enforcement in PCEP
draft-ietf-pce-local-protection-enforcement-00
Abstract
This document updates [RFC5440] to clarify usage of the local
protection desired bit signalled in Path Computation Element Protocol
(PCEP). This document also introduces a new flag for signalling
protection strictness in PCEP.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Stone, et al. Expires May 20, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft I-D November 2020
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Implementation differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. SLA Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Protection Enforcement Flag (E-Flag) . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Nokia Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Cisco Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. LSP Attributes Protection Enforcement Flag . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)
[RFC5440] enables the communication between a Path Computation Client
(PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between two PCEs based on
the PCE architecture [RFC4655].
PCEP [RFC5440] utilizes flags, values and concepts previously defined
in RSVP-TE Extensions [RFC3209] and Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-
TE [RFC4090]. One such concept in PCEP is the 'Local Protection
Desired' (L-flag in the LSPA Object in RFC5440), which was originally
defined in the SESSION-ATTRIBUTE Object in RFC3209. In RSVP, this
flag signals to downstream routers that local protection is desired,
which indicates to transit routers that they may use a local repair
mechanism. The headend router calculating the path does not know
whether a downstream router will or will not protect a hop during
it's calculation. Therefore, a local protection desired does not
require the transit router to satisfy protection in order to
establish the RSVP signalled path. This flag is signalled in PCEP as
Show full document text